Friday afternoon graph porn

Written By: - Date published: 2:50 pm, April 19th, 2013 - 28 comments
Categories: benefits, equality, tax - Tags:

 

 

 

tax evasion vs benefit fraud

 

Tax evasion is estimated at $1-6 billion, so that graph could look a lot worse too.

And then there’s our GINI, the measure of income inequality in NZ:

GINI

28 comments on “Friday afternoon graph porn ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Daveo 1
    19 April 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Man, that fourth labour government really fcked it eh?

  2. Macro 2
    19 April 2013 at 4:44 pm

    Why I’ve removed my vote from Labour for the past 25 years.

  3. Richard Down South 3
    19 April 2013 at 4:46 pm

    Any chance could do a better quality version of the top graph? its all pixelated

  4. Rhinocrates 4
    19 April 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Here’s a line to use: “How much more do National, Act, United Coiffure and the Maori Party care about protecting tax evaders over punishing beneficiaries?”

    Peter Dunne is the minister responsible for revenue. He could be asked about that. Why is so useless to everyone except his hairstylist?

  5. TightyRighty 5
    19 April 2013 at 5:05 pm

    Tax evaders still contribute to society though? They provide jobs, probably pay some tax. While its heinous its still ten times better than just sticking your hand further and further into the taxpayers pocket.

    • weka 5.1
      19 April 2013 at 5:17 pm

      Beneficiaries still contribute to society though. They raise kids, look after old people, do many and various forms of voluntary work, pay tax when they have paid work (yes, idiot, many people on the dole do do paid work too). They also buy food, clothes, etc and pay rent/mortgage, thus contributing to the economy and helping provide jobs for people. While it’s heinous that a very small number of people rip off the benefit system, it’s still 100 times better than the many who withhold money from the govt while using the govt’s services.

      • Rhinocrates 5.1.1
        19 April 2013 at 5:44 pm

        Exactly, Weka. I’m not sure if TR is naive (I’m in a rare charitable mood) or not. He/She/It is using the argument of, “Well, they’re not perfect but…” That would be nice, that would be good… but why isn’t that generosity extended to beneficiaries then?

        I would point readers at Marilyn Waring’s Counting for Nothing. Yes, she was a former National MP, and she knows the value of unpaid work.

        probably pay some tax.

        “Probably”. Ah guesswork, despite there being abundant evidence that large corporations don’t pay any tax at all. It varies, but on the whole, they use tricks to pay far less than they should and many industries receive large taxpayer-funded subsidies.

        just sticking your hand further and further into the taxpayers pocket

        Ah, well who’s doing that? Moreover, they are buying laws now.

        So, TR, if you’re going to so kindly, so generously extend the benefit of the doubt, based on guesses – i.e., prejudice – how about being consistent?

        And how about the sheer proportion, eh? If it’s not a matter of what one might suppose or guess might possibly be someone’s intentions and worth, look at the actual costs? Why are beneficiaries attacked when on purely economic terms, tax evaders do more damage to the economy? It simply does not make sense even on the most limited economic terms.

        ten times better

        Bullshit. Have a look at the graph. Is that “ten times better”, really? It looks like it’s the other way around… but hey, let’s never underestimate cognitive dissonance.

        So why are you trying to excuse them?

        • Rhinocrates 5.1.1.1
          19 April 2013 at 5:54 pm

          Missed the edit time limit, so…

          Moreover, they are buying laws now.

          Rio Tinto, Warner Brothers, Petrobras…

        • weka 5.1.1.2
          19 April 2013 at 7:35 pm

          “Why are beneficiaries attacked when on purely economic terms, tax evaders do more damage to the economy? It simply does not make sense even on the most limited economic terms.”

          Nothing to do with economics, hatred of beneficiaries is everything to do with selfishness, greed, miserliness of spirit, and ideology. Probably something to do with self-hatred and projection too, but I’d rather not look too closely at that psychological pathology.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.2.1
            19 April 2013 at 7:55 pm

            I tend to think that it’s more about power of the strong over the weak. And bullies always love to side with those they view as strong – the rich and the powerful. Who also happen to be the big tax avoiders/evaders.

  6. AsleepWhileWalking 6
    19 April 2013 at 5:05 pm

    I’d like to see the graph that shows the cost of legal representation for beneficiaries (assuming they even had any) vs cost of legal representation for tax evaders.

    The government picks the easy targets.

  7. Tom Barker 7
    19 April 2013 at 6:06 pm

    “Why I’ve removed my vote from Labour for the past 25 years.”

    Me too. And have not yet seen reason to give it back to them

  8. BLiP 8
    19 April 2013 at 7:20 pm

    ‘

    That income (in)equality graph breaks my heart. The empircal evidence shows that everyone, including the rich, have better, longer lives when income is more equally dispersed within a society. Frustrating.

    Hey, Draco, you out there? What do you reckon to The Spirit Level?

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      19 April 2013 at 9:54 pm

      What do you reckon to The Spirit Level?

      Good book, clearly and concisely puts down the evidence showing that inequality is bad for society. This means that we have to stop rewarding the rich for being rich and start to properly distribute societies resources amongst the people. A change I believe needs to coincide with changing the purpose of the economy from one of profit for the few that is endemic to mainstream economics to one that supports everyone.

      • Molly 8.1.1
        21 April 2013 at 9:51 am

        Recently attended attended a series of lectures (partly paid for by Auckland Council through Thriving Communities) by Natalie Nicholls, from the New Economics Foundation. They were established in the UK in 1986, and their tagline is “Economics as if people and the planet mattered”.

        A good place to look at alternative – and quantified – views on how to manage money (and government policy) with regard to people and the environment.

  9. RedBaronCV 9
    19 April 2013 at 10:43 pm

    Personally I think we should be grateful to anyone who wants to live on a low income [ I do know that these incomes are too low] and if they move to Blackball that’s probably even better. What people on low incomes aren’t doing is wrecking the planet, they are not overconsuming useless stuff
    that trashes the enviroment and if imported from elsewhere stuffs the balance of payment. Whereas the well off use more power than they need, contribute to greenhouse gases by travelling all over the place and buying useless stuff that they don’t need etc etc. Behind every I and C in those natty little economic formulas is some bastard digging up the planet. Yep sometimes I am guilty too.

    Sometimes I ask myself do we need more income equality or more consumption equality?

  10. Melb 10
    19 April 2013 at 11:36 pm

    I hope everybody here always declares their cash jobs to the IRD. Don’t be a part of the tax evasion rort.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      19 April 2013 at 11:55 pm

      Let me clue you in: one to two billion dollars of tax evasion doesn’t really occur from cash lawn mowing jobs.

    • BLiP 10.2
      20 April 2013 at 3:23 am

      ‘

      Never mind “every one here” – lets start with the foreign-owned corporates, shall we . . .

      BNZ

      Alesco

      Westpac

      Facebook

      Apple

      . . . there’s a coupla billion to get started. Let me know when you want the my 16-year-old’s baby-sitting earnings.

      • weka 10.2.1
        20 April 2013 at 8:43 am

        Lawn-mowing, baby-sitting sure. But there are plenty of adults in NZ doing cash work alongside their through the books work eg builders, cleaners. I agree that it’s still the corporate tax evaders that are the problem, but I do feel some discomfit about the people I know who do under the table work and who appear to think this is an ethical choice irrespective of financial need. It worries me how many people esp those younger than me are now largely disconnected from the idea that the govt is there to collectively manage income and assets for the good of everyone, and that is what taxes get paid for. And these aren’t NACT voting people, they vote on the left. It doesn’t bother me that they don’t pay tax as much as they can (if the system was fair to them it would be a different story), but it also reflects a deep shift in our culture.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 10.3
      20 April 2013 at 9:05 am

      Actually I refuse to pay for cash jobs even though it will save me money.

      I have no problem paying tax and don’t support those who try and get out of it.

      I do get some funny reactions from tradesman when I not only say no to the cash deal but they completely lose my business as well.

      I remember years ago seeing a report on why doing cash jobs (or not putting everything through the books) was actually detrimental to your business – it made for quite interesting reading.

      Generally though I find it difficult to support businessman who rort the tax system and always wonder if the quality of their business practise will be reflected in the quality of the work.

      I’ve had family who were in the trades and they all frowned strenuously on this practise and all produced quality work. My building family never built a leaky home, my sparky family do high quality work and are well respected for that quality, and so on – though sometimes I wish I had a bricky in the family.

  11. Wairua 11
    20 April 2013 at 6:35 am

    If Key decides that the strong whiff of nepotism around GCSB is getting a bit rich and does the right thing and resigns, do they replace him with Brownlee as HenryVIII, Joyce as Igor from Frankenstein, or Banks as a demented Russ Limbaugh. ?

    A few heads have probably already done the numbers, and suddenly Maurice Williamson rises to the fore with a positively Obamian brand of populism. Hmm .. that’s what Key used to do. Williamson is no blow-in, a more substantial personality than Key, but is this a large enough franchise to win an election ?

    He has been on the outer with some of the heavy hitters mentioned above, and this speech allows him – and his supporters – to create a viable alternative.

    Watch this space.

Links to post